Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Post Reply
Page 3 of 15  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 15 Next
Switch to Forum Live View ORIGIN OF LIFE - Question 10 - How do 'living fossils' remain unchanged?
6 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2012 - 11:29AM #21
watcher59
Posts: 1,606

Because those "challenges" are, at best, uninformed and, at worst, flat out lies.


You make some valid points and I admit that I am uniformed about much of the data regarding ToE. However, I'm diligently, if not flawlessly, trying to frame my 'challenges' as questions.


You have demonstrated that many of YOUR "challenges" are merely regurgitations of "creationist" talking points, and are, therefore, of the latter. 



Regardless of creationists' views on the origin of life, their questions are valid. They should be answered seriously. Whether the answers are accepted or not isn't really important. Off handed dismissal of the question soley because you don't agree with the questioner is disingenuous. From my perspective, creationism and evolutionism are full of zealots making the same, unsupported arguments from opposite ends of the spectrum.


BTW, in the ten+ years that I have been involved in the SCIENCE vs. creationism "debates" there have been LOTS of people coming on to these "debate" boards claiming that they "don't have a dog in this fight". I


Which puts me in the rare position of being able to alienate everyone. Most of my christian friends believe I'm hell-bound for blasphemy and heresy. Some are convinced I'm hell-born!



How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2012 - 11:57AM #22
d_p_m
Posts: 11,236

Mar 29, 2012 -- 8:53AM, watcher59 wrote:




Why don't you read those university biology textbooks you've been avoiding?




Are you saying that university biology textbooks prove evolution?




`


The facts in the peer reviewed science prove evolution. The biology textbooks organize and present some of those facts in a fashion more accessible to the non-expert, and they explain what evolution, and the Theory of Evolution really are. If you just read creationist sites, you won't even really know what you are arguing against. I have never seen a creationist site that accurately and honestly describes evolution, the evidence for evolution, the science behind evolution, or the ToE.

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."
― Niels Bohr

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
-- Albert Einstein

"If one is going to engage with the primordial forces of darkness, one must expect a bit of social awkwardness."
-- Penny Dreadful, season one, episode two
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2012 - 12:01PM #23
Ken
Posts: 33,858

Mar 29, 2012 -- 10:20AM, watcher59 wrote:


I'm curious why anyone, creationist or skeptic, doesn't have the right to challenge the conclusions of science?



Because not everyone has the knowledge, training, and expertise. The right to challenge must be earned.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2012 - 12:07PM #24
d_p_m
Posts: 11,236

Mar 29, 2012 -- 11:29AM, watcher59 wrote:


Regardless of creationists' views on the origin of life, their questions are valid.




Ummmm... no. Not all of them. A lot of them are of the 'when did you stop beating your wife?' nature. Others make no sense at all - like 'Why is the sky green all the time?'. Others keep asking for basic science that anyone past grade four should know, and when the first one is answered, you then get another question on the same level, or a request for more explanation. Other questions are requests for answers that have been given, sometimes literally dozens of times.


Other creationist 'questions' are not questions but lies, presented as fact, or statements of broken logic.


Honest questions that make sense, and which are non-trivial tend to get answered, as do an assortment of the others.


"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."
― Niels Bohr

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
-- Albert Einstein

"If one is going to engage with the primordial forces of darkness, one must expect a bit of social awkwardness."
-- Penny Dreadful, season one, episode two
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2012 - 12:16PM #25
wohali
Posts: 10,227

"I'm curious why anyone, creationist or skeptic, doesn't have the right to challenge the conclusions of science? Is there some scientific papacy whose edicts are beyond question?"


Anyone has the "right" to challenge scientific conclusions. Silly-assed, ignorant challenges are still nothing more than that.


Just as I would have the "right" to challenge Eric Clapton to a guitar face-off, with full knowledge that I would get my ass kicked to a humiliating degree.


Kinda like creationists do here every day.............

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2012 - 12:35PM #26
watcher59
Posts: 1,606

Mar 29, 2012 -- 12:07PM, d_p_m wrote:


Mar 29, 2012 -- 11:29AM, watcher59 wrote:


Regardless of creationists' views on the origin of life, their questions are valid.




Ummmm... no. Not all of them. A lot of them are of the 'when did you stop beating your wife?' nature. Others make no sense at all - like 'Why is the sky green all the time?'. Others keep asking for basic science that anyone past grade four should know, and when the first one is answered, you then get another question on the same level, or a request for more explanation. Other questions are requests for answers that have been given, sometimes literally dozens of times.


Other creationist 'questions' are not questions but lies, presented as fact, or statements of broken logic.


Touché


Honest questions that make sense, and which are non-trivial tend to get answered, as do an assortment of the others.


Sometimes. Too often, the questioner is ridiculed and the question dismissed.




How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2012 - 1:28PM #27
Oncomintrain
Posts: 3,516

Mar 29, 2012 -- 11:57AM, d_p_m wrote:


Mar 29, 2012 -- 8:53AM, watcher59 wrote:




Why don't you read those university biology textbooks you've been avoiding?




Are you saying that university biology textbooks prove evolution?




`


The facts in the peer reviewed science prove evolution. The biology textbooks organize and present some of those facts in a fashion more accessible to the non-expert, and they explain what evolution, and the Theory of Evolution really are. If you just read creationist sites, you won't even really know what you are arguing against. I have never seen a creationist site that accurately and honestly describes evolution, the evidence for evolution, the science behind evolution, or the ToE.





I want to throw this in there: NO scientific theory is EVER proven. As I was just saying in another thread, all of science is based on inductive reasoning. An inductively reasoned theory can always be disproven by the future introduction of contradictory evidence. This is just as true of the Theory of Gravity, or Atomic Theory, or the Germ Theory of Disease. All we can present for ANY scientific theory is evidence that supports the theory as highly explanatory, predictive, and consistent with available evidence. Any 101 level Evolutionary Biology textbook ought to do that for the Theory of Evolution, because it has been shown to be highly explanatory and predictive, and consistent with available evidence.


Now, that's the THEORY of Evolution, which proposes specific mechanisms and claims about life's history. We need to distinguish it from simply "evolution." Because evolution, which is simply the change of heritable characteristics in a population over successive generations, is not a theory, it is an observable fact, seen both in nature and in the lab.

Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2012 - 2:08PM #28
d_p_m
Posts: 11,236

Mar 29, 2012 -- 12:35PM, watcher59 wrote:


Mar 29, 2012 -- 12:07PM, d_p_m wrote:


Mar 29, 2012 -- 11:29AM, watcher59 wrote:


Regardless of creationists' views on the origin of life, their questions are valid.




Ummmm... no. Not all of them. A lot of them are of the 'when did you stop beating your wife?' nature. Others make no sense at all - like 'Why is the sky green all the time?'. Others keep asking for basic science that anyone past grade four should know, and when the first one is answered, you then get another question on the same level, or a request for more explanation. Other questions are requests for answers that have been given, sometimes literally dozens of times.


Other creationist 'questions' are not questions but lies, presented as fact, or statements of broken logic.


Touché


Honest questions that make sense, and which are non-trivial tend to get answered, as do an assortment of the others.


Sometimes. Too often, the questioner is ridiculed and the question dismissed.






It might help if you read some of the existing threads. A lot of those questions have been answered, often dozens of times. Asking the same question others have asked 30 times in the last year, ignoring all the answers, is likely to get a somewhat curt response. It's not personal, it's a disinclination to type the same thing for the 31st time, particularly when the answer is available to anyone who does a little bit of looking on their own, here or in any number of reputable sources.

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."
― Niels Bohr

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
-- Albert Einstein

"If one is going to engage with the primordial forces of darkness, one must expect a bit of social awkwardness."
-- Penny Dreadful, season one, episode two
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2012 - 2:14PM #29
d_p_m
Posts: 11,236

Mar 29, 2012 -- 1:28PM, Oncomintrain wrote:


Mar 29, 2012 -- 11:57AM, d_p_m wrote:


Mar 29, 2012 -- 8:53AM, watcher59 wrote:




Why don't you read those university biology textbooks you've been avoiding?




Are you saying that university biology textbooks prove evolution?




`


DPM: The facts in the peer reviewed science prove evolution. The biology textbooks organize and present some of those facts in a fashion more accessible to the non-expert, and they explain what evolution, and the Theory of Evolution really are. If you just read creationist sites, you won't even really know what you are arguing against. I have never seen a creationist site that accurately and honestly describes evolution, the evidence for evolution, the science behind evolution, or the ToE.





OCT: I want to throw this in there: NO scientific theory is EVER proven. As I was just saying in another thread, all of science is based on inductive reasoning. An inductively reasoned theory can always be disproven by the future introduction of contradictory evidence. This is just as true of the Theory of Gravity, or Atomic Theory, or the Germ Theory of Disease. All we can present for ANY scientific theory is evidence that supports the theory as highly explanatory, predictive, and consistent with available evidence. Any 101 level Evolutionary Biology textbook ought to do that for the Theory of Evolution, because it has been shown to be highly explanatory and predictive, and consistent with available evidence.


Now, that's the THEORY of Evolution, which proposes specific mechanisms and claims about life's history. We need to distinguish it from simply "evolution." Because evolution, which is simply the change of heritable characteristics in a population over successive generations, is not a theory, it is an observable fact, seen both in nature and in the lab.




DPM: I was ambiguous. Mea culpa. Oncomintrain is completely right. Scientific theories are not proven, they simply become so well validated and supported that it is intellectually perverse to deny their essential correctnes - but they are always subject to testing and revision.


When I said the biology textbooks prove evolution, I really should have said that biology textbooks prove the FACT of evolution - that evolution does happen and is observed. The ToE, which explains those facts is as OCT described, a different kind of thing - an explanation, that operates under different stringent rules for validation.

"If you aren't confused by quantum physics, you haven't really understood it."
― Niels Bohr

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
-- Albert Einstein

"If one is going to engage with the primordial forces of darkness, one must expect a bit of social awkwardness."
-- Penny Dreadful, season one, episode two
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2012 - 2:58PM #30
MMarcoe
Posts: 20,907

Mar 29, 2012 -- 12:35PM, watcher59 wrote:



Honest questions that make sense, and which are non-trivial tend to get answered, as do an assortment of the others.


Sometimes. Too often, the questioner is ridiculed and the question dismissed.




When questioners are ridiculed, it is usually because they are framing their questions in disingenuous ways. They use false dichotomies, for example, thinking they can "trap" those they are questioning.


Creationist ideology is rife with false ways of presenting ideas and data.

1. Extremists think that thinking means agreeing with them.
2. There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
3. God is the original nothingness of the universe.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 15  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 15 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook